Socionics - the16types.info forums - General Socionics Discussionhttp://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/
General Socionics discussionenMon, 19 Nov 2018 23:53:43 GMTvBulletin60http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/images/misc/rss.pngSocionics - the16types.info forums - General Socionics Discussionhttp://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/
Living with Creative Fehttp://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/57199-Living-with-Creative-Fe?goto=newpost
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:17:52 GMTAlthough it is written that IEIs are easily infatuated, similar could be said for SEI too. Both have creative Fe.

I'm at midlife now. The 1st time I fell passionately in love I was only 5. I waited 12 years to become his first gf and he my 1st bf. After 5 months and ready for marriage, he broke my heart because he wanted to play the field and I was just his starter, from his perspective.

A few years ago I decided to remember and count every love interest I've ever had, even if a passing encounter with a stranger with no real interaction. At midlife I realized I've had, even though never yet married, over 100 interests. Such is living with Creative Fe.

It took me 7 years to get over my 1st bf of 5 months whom I had waited 12 years to date. My deeper love interests tend to last years and years. They continue when no better prospect exists but some loves just remain - many undeveloped. I can think of another love interest who I was still dreaming about, awakening and feeling in love as ever, even though we hadn't seen each other in another 12 years, even though in real life we never kissed.

My emotional life runs much of my life. Such is living with Creative Fe. I need ongoing charge with affections whether in art, ideas or people to stay motivated and engaged. And if I'm having relationship problems, my performance at work or school suffers so much that I require positions that let me hide when necessary so I can work out my own issues in private (e.g. tears). I can't take on a role like secondary school teacher even though I'm good with kids because the daily routine is too much like performance art, and my own nature is to be much deeper and private with details than I could separate between work and personal.

I counted today how many times I have truly ever been passionately in love - not just platonically, and not just infatuation. My answer is 4 times, including that 1st time and my current fiance. I'm 44.

When I am feeling deeply enamoured, I need a secret creative outlet to translate my feelings because they HAVE to go somewhere. So I have sung songs in private, or danced, or painted a lot, or especially have written a lot of avant garde style poetry that is intentionally difficult to understand. The focus is on invented new sensations or trying to aesthetically convey the conventionally unconveyable.

Sometimes in some customer service types of jobs I've been able to ignore my own feelings enough to just generate new positive emotional experiences for customers. Or friends and family. But like one SEI profile says, it is true I tend to hide when I emotionally don't feel well enough. The reason is because I don't want to burden others. I don't view being emotionally stimulating to others, making them smile and laugh as "manipulative" so much as friendliness.

This past weekend I made both my parents laugh a lot. I do this in zany ways but only with people I am very close to. I don't have as active a social life as I'd like to. I'm also one of many who feels like if I don't reach out and say hi to others I know, they just mostly ignore me because they expect me to initiate, which honestly is tiring. You don't want to keep doing it if it seems others also don't really care enough to try.

Creative Fe. The nature of my emotions runs so deep I feel them with a profound intensity in my body. I rarely come on strong to others like Fe leads do though because I'm an introvert. It all falls back on me. I enjoy intellectual pursuits a lot because I appreciate the calm and objectivity it offers to help me feel centered. I studied math and physics in college because of this appreciation for objectivity. Sometimes lectures even felt like falling in love with ideas. (The art and humanities classes were such easy As for me even if not for others that I took them for granted and avoided them so as to become more well rounded.) Yet if you put my dual who is ALSO attractive next to me in class, I can no longer focus on studies but my dual and trying to contrive ways to be together. So much fantasizing and adoring from a distance. I'm really guilty of that.

I've also been accused in real life many times as being too nice. I am not as rosy-eyed in the last few years as I used to be most my life just because I have had some really horrific things happen to me too much and I'm tired of a*holes getting away with sh*t while I am forced to keep playing nice.

Such is the life of being a creative Fe type.
]]>General Socionics Discussionvesstheastralsilkyhttp://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/57199-Living-with-Creative-FeInter-function relations and indifference toward true strengths?http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/57169-Inter-function-relations-and-indifference-toward-true-strengths?goto=newpost
Tue, 13 Nov 2018 19:30:26 GMTI'm unsure whether these have been already resolved and/or extensively discussed by the community—if so, then consider this post a question regarding those topics, because I haven't been able to find information on them.

This is very rudimentary and possibly irrational; it's not polished by Ti as I couldn't be fucked lately. First, I question whether all functions can be examined by themselves—that is to say, whether they change form based on influence from other functions. Socionics takes into account the influence their position may have, and the influence the individual's relation to them has on them, but I haven't been able to find information on possible inter-function relations. An example of this is Si and how it differs when more of its content is generated by Ti than by Fi, or vice versa. I may have an esoteric view on Si, but it seems to me the conceptual frameworks are built entirely differently when Ti is used as opposed to when Fi is. This division I would call the dichotomy of "connotative/denotative" Si: connotative Si is built by Fi by associating together concepts based on ethical evaluation and universal moral standards, giving rise to a kind of "it's true because it should be true" mode of epistemology (also predisposing the individual to cults of various kinds), whereas denotative Si is built by Ti by logical connectivity to certain axioms (also predisposing the individual to a risk of building a doll-house model of reality that works with perfect logic as long as you don't question the axioms).

This may be understood by many Socionists and inferred by knowledgeable people themselves, but I do not see it written and systematized clearly anywhere. Inter-function relations, once they are conceptualized, may provide additional discoveries on the particular natures of different types. Again, if this has already been questioned, consider this simply a question on where I could find additional information on the subject.

The second observation I have made has to do with how the dominant functions are defined. It is assumed that a person's strongest function is also one that the person values, or moreover values most, when this seems to go contrary to the principle of dissatisfaction: we seem to value that which we can't quite master, that which challenges us. This would imply that the strongest function is indeed one that is often treated with a certain indifference. This would also explain the phenomenon I've witnessed time and again, where those who are absolutely dominating in a given competitive field (say, Ronnie O'Sullivan in snooker) are also seemingly rather indifferent about the field: it does not engage them, it does not force them to act. If this is correct, then a great portion of tests are asking the testee to manifest a complement of their real type. For example, the test is asking whether the individual "tries to maintain a state of harmony between them and others," to which an individual with this attribute truly as the dominant responds with a mediocre score because they have no idea they are constantly doing it—it comes naturally, and they are indifferent to it, they do not "try" to do it. Similarly an individual who is asked whether they "are always paying extra attention to the logic of an argument" and truly has introverted logic as the strongest attribute, they will again score this badly because they do not pay attention to it, it reveals itself automatically.

Perhaps this only applies to some functions. I'm not sure what else there is to this, I have to think about it. But it seems to me that in all cases where someone is experiencing a sort of stagnating neurosis it's due to them ignoring the strengths they truly have because they have self-perpetually gone deeper and deeper into an obsession on correcting their flaws and becoming "what they should be;" and they may have the conviction that they are "good at nothing, everything is impossible," and when one points out the strength they truly have they go

"oh that, that's nothing, I don't even care about that"

and the cycle keeps perpetuating itself. They are not grounding themselves in what they truly excel at in order to sort of through and alongside that find challenges that intrigue them.

Anyway, I think that true strengths aren't points of pride but simple obvious facts and tests should take this into account or else people keep mistyping themselves through Super-id or whatever. Maybe this has larger implications, perhaps 7 and 8 are always stronger or tend to be stronger due to a kind of over-clocking or obsessiveness (Ti with me, I'm quite sure) which makes them uncomfortable and thus rarely used. However it is, this is simply a share on these two points of speculation, maybe a conversation can be had about these.